ProGrade 512GB vs Sony Tough 128GB (UHS-II SD "Fight")

The Sony Tough SF-G128T/T1 is the fastest card I've tested to date, besting the ProGrades, Lexars, SanDisks out there (tested myself). However, based off recent rumblings of the latest 512GB offering from ProGrade (PGSD512GBCKBH), I thought I'd give it a shot as it would appear to both be larger, and faster...

.

First up build quality and build specs...

(Sony SF-G128T/T1 on the left, ProGrade PGSD512GBCKBH on the right)

Both are Made in Taiwan, however the ProGrade makes a thud vs the Sony makes a clank when dropped on my desk in front of me. The Sony is a single mold without a read/write lock that can break if present (which is absent for this reason). The ProGrade is a traditional build presumably not a single mold and does have a breakable read/write lock on the side. Sony obviously wins for being "Tough". Both are made in Taiwan which hints TSMC or similar actually made the chips (high end).

.

Synthetic BenchMarks

.

Computer testing usually gives you a good idea how each should perform in-camera, so thought I'd put this up first. All results were repeated multiple times and performed freshly formatted in-camera and the cards "warmed up" ie given previous tests first and the best presented below.

Sony Tough SF-G128T/T1 BlackMagic

Sony Tough SF-G128T/T1 ATTO

Sony Tough 128GB SF-G128T/T1, ATTO Graph

Next up, the ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH

ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH, BlackMagic

ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH ATTO

ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH, ATTO Graph

Next up, in-camera testing. Fixed point, fixed focus (to produce identical file sizes), repeated and freshly formatted, warmed up, again.

Sony Tough 128GB SF-G128T/T1, Full RAW 14FPS

Sony Tough 128GB SF-G128T/T1, C-RAW 7FPS

Sony Tough 128GB SF-G128T/T1 RAW Burst

And here is the ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH in-camera tests...

ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH, Full RAW 14FPS

ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH, C-RAW 7FPS

ProGrade 512GB PGSD512GBCKBH, RAW Burst

.

So, what did we learn?

Testing shows the new larger capacity ProGrade 512GB has faster writes, which do show up when given a chance (7FPS C-RAW); I saw this as well in my former testing where a UHS-I card performs identically to a much faster UHS-II card at Full RAW, 14FPS just because the buffer in the camera fills so quickly it doesn't matter how fast your card is, your internal buffer is filling first. Now I didn't count the number of seconds to "dump" but the data above says it all, the new ProGrade 512GB is about 10% faster in terms of in-camera performance, but, is also larger in capacity. I should note that lower capacity ProGrades do not perform as well as the latest one, I've seen it both in my own testing, and others have too. So just because the 512GB ProGrade bests the Sony Toughs, does not mean the lower capacities do (they don't). Clearly newer "better" silicon is in play here.

.

Lastly, in a sorta of Roger C. moment of "duh" where no advanced testing is needed, the ProGrade 512GB formats faster in-camera than the Sony Tough, despite being larger. That was a dead giveaway of the results off the bat.

.

I'll revisit this with time to dump data later, however it's a clear winner given the repeated results both in-camera and synthetic computer results.

.

Lastly, I observed faster "warmup" on the synthetic testing on the new ProGrade 512GB vs the Sony Tough as well. It's not just faster bandwidth and IO in play. That's harder to show here without a movie, so you'll have to take my word for it.

RLight wrote:

wow, you spent $500 on a prograde 512 to do this test?

with a single slot camera I use smaller sony tough M cards in case of failure I don't loose 512 gig worth

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

wow, you spent $500 on a prograde 512 to do this test?

with a single slot camera I use smaller sony tough M cards in case of failure I don't loose 512 gig worth

Not exactly, it was $449 when I bought it last week on B&H. I’ve been lazy lately with unloading my card, 128 GB has been a problem lately if you can believe it. This solves a couple problems for me in one shot.

I should add my R gets the 128GB Sony now. Both my cameras have been maxing my cards…

I am left with a middle man out though; the Sony Tough 64GB I have now has no home

I am using on my R5 a 128g SDR2 Kingston, I paid on Amazon $129 CDN, I think this is fast enough..

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

wow, you spent $500 on a prograde 512 to do this test?

with a single slot camera I use smaller sony tough M cards in case of failure I don't loose 512 gig worth

Not exactly, it was $449 when I bought it last week on B&H. I’ve been lazy lately with unloading my card, 128 GB has been a problem lately if you can believe it. This solves a couple problems for me in one shot.

I should add my R gets the 128GB Sony now. Both my cameras have been maxing my cards…

I am left with a middle man out though; the Sony Tough 64GB I have now has no home

my sony tough M 64 gig cards cost $39 each and hold  about1,730  RAW images on one card from my M6II

I get 30 RAW's in about 2 seconds at 14 fps then it takes about 8 seconds for the memory to clear

not sure what you are suggesting those cards of yours do better ... I can't imagine I'd ever spend that kind of money on cards

for important work, with a single card slot, don't put too many eggs in one basket

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on, and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB. There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

RLight wrote:

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on,

take lens cap off

and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB.

what?  reality is 37 mpxl RAWS

There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

just take lens cap off, shoot real shots

how many shots?  around 30 in 2 seconds

how long to clear buffer?  around 8 seconds

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on,

take lens cap off

and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB.

what? reality is 37 mpxl RAWS

There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

just take lens cap off, shoot real shots

how many shots? around 30 in 2 seconds

how long to clear buffer? around 8 seconds

Both cards are writing back exactly 10GB in 2 minutes in camera. I did a test of continuous burst non-stop for 2 minutes and compared the number of shots but more importantly the amount of data written back as in real life shooting RAW files do vary slightly in size depending on conditions.

The camera, if you can believe it, is only capable of processing approx 83mb/sec of data by my math. Now yes, the ProGrade can write it back a touch faster in single clear only, the but this in fact doesn't matter apparently if you're going to repeat it right after, which is the point and the assumption that having a faster card will let you jump back in the action faster. The camera is the bottleneck anyways, tough.

Now it is apparent on a single clear that some cards are faster than others. But does it matter? Again, I'll have to change my testing methodology. Have to leave for my real duties in a bit, I'm thinking I shoot bursts at a time, not a single long continuous burst. But I think I'll run into the same problem. Going to mull on this further but right now my verdict is having a fast UHS-II card is beneficial, but not sure how much difference it makes. Maybe I re-run the 2 minute test with a UHS-I card? Maybe I will later.

I’m wondering if shooting CRAW or JPEG influences these numbers now… More testing needed.

Edit: it’s sounding like there are three components in play, the processor, a fixed internal buffer, and the card. But the notion of a bus limit, appears false. Now this amounts to a bus limit, but it’s a weakest link in the chain, which appears to be the processor, not a north bridge or USB/scsi protocol/sd bus issue, theoretically. This is in fact a worse problem than a bus limit of 160mb/sec, but it makes logical sense. Again, I’ll retest with different conditions and and setup to see how much that card actually matters in “best case” scenarios. I can tell you right now, not as much as I thought. It’s simply not the weak link in the chain. The processor appears to be. Canons been behind the times on processing for years, this remains unchanged which shouldn’t surprise me.

GraphAD wrote:

I am using on my R5 a 128g SDR2 Kingston, I paid on Amazon $129 CDN, I think this is fast enough..

I saw the benchmarks from that card, it intrigued me, and I was hoping someone would pipe in about it. I was turned off by the QC reviews that tell me some people get good silicon and others don't. The failures in certain cameras coupled with poor benchmarks tell me it's not delivering what you're getting for others.

Can you run a BlackMagic Benchmark btw? CrystalMark, although don't get me wrong, well established, I'd like to see another.

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on,

take lens cap off

and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB.

what? reality is 37 mpxl RAWS

There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

just take lens cap off, shoot real shots

how many shots? around 30 in 2 seconds

how long to clear buffer? around 8 seconds

Both cards are writing back exactly 10GB in 2 minutes in camera. I did a test of continuous burst non-stop for 2 minutes and compared the number of shots but more importantly the amount of data written back as in real life shooting RAW files do vary slightly in size depending on conditions.

The camera, if you can believe it, is only capable of processing approx 83mb/sec of data by my math. Now yes, the ProGrade can write it back a touch faster in single clear only, the but this in fact doesn't matter apparently if you're going to repeat it right after, which is the point and the assumption that having a faster card will let you jump back in the action faster. The camera is the bottleneck anyways, tough.

Now it is apparent on a single clear that some cards are faster than others. But does it matter? Again, I'll have to change my testing methodology. Have to leave for my real duties in a bit, I'm thinking I shoot bursts at a time, not a single long continuous burst. But I think I'll run into the same problem. Going to mull on this further but right now my verdict is having a fast UHS-II card is beneficial, but not sure how much difference it makes. Maybe I re-run the 2 minute test with a UHS-I card? Maybe I will later.

I’m wondering if shooting CRAW or JPEG influences these numbers now… More testing needed.

Edit: it’s sounding like there are three components in play, the processor, a fixed internal buffer, and the card. But the notion of a bus limit, appears false. Now this amounts to a bus limit, but it’s a weakest link in the chain, which appears to be the processor, not a north bridge or USB/scsi protocol/sd bus issue, theoretically. This is in fact a worse problem than a bus limit of 160mb/sec, but it makes logical sense. Again, I’ll retest with different conditions and and setup to see how much that card actually matters in “best case” scenarios. I can tell you right now, not as much as I thought. It’s simply not the weak link in the chain. The processor appears to be. Canons been behind the times on processing for years, this remains unchanged which shouldn’t surprise me.

Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review - Performance (imaging-resource.com)

test like the above - otherwise have no idea what you are doing

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on,

take lens cap off

and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB.

what? reality is 37 mpxl RAWS

There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

just take lens cap off, shoot real shots

how many shots? around 30 in 2 seconds

how long to clear buffer? around 8 seconds

Both cards are writing back exactly 10GB in 2 minutes in camera. I did a test of continuous burst non-stop for 2 minutes and compared the number of shots but more importantly the amount of data written back as in real life shooting RAW files do vary slightly in size depending on conditions.

The camera, if you can believe it, is only capable of processing approx 83mb/sec of data by my math. Now yes, the ProGrade can write it back a touch faster in single clear only, the but this in fact doesn't matter apparently if you're going to repeat it right after, which is the point and the assumption that having a faster card will let you jump back in the action faster. The camera is the bottleneck anyways, tough.

Now it is apparent on a single clear that some cards are faster than others. But does it matter? Again, I'll have to change my testing methodology. Have to leave for my real duties in a bit, I'm thinking I shoot bursts at a time, not a single long continuous burst. But I think I'll run into the same problem. Going to mull on this further but right now my verdict is having a fast UHS-II card is beneficial, but not sure how much difference it makes. Maybe I re-run the 2 minute test with a UHS-I card? Maybe I will later.

I’m wondering if shooting CRAW or JPEG influences these numbers now… More testing needed.

Edit: it’s sounding like there are three components in play, the processor, a fixed internal buffer, and the card. But the notion of a bus limit, appears false. Now this amounts to a bus limit, but it’s a weakest link in the chain, which appears to be the processor, not a north bridge or USB/scsi protocol/sd bus issue, theoretically. This is in fact a worse problem than a bus limit of 160mb/sec, but it makes logical sense. Again, I’ll retest with different conditions and and setup to see how much that card actually matters in “best case” scenarios. I can tell you right now, not as much as I thought. It’s simply not the weak link in the chain. The processor appears to be. Canons been behind the times on processing for years, this remains unchanged which shouldn’t surprise me.

Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review - Performance (imaging-resource.com)

test like the above - otherwise have no idea what you are doing

I highly prize that article, but this goes beyond The scope of that article. It appears that the processor has always been the weak link in the chain. This is a surprise to me because I thought Canon had solved that with DIGIC8, they didn’t. This makes a little more sense now why they essentially took the same sensor and put it in the R7 but slapped a newer processor behind.

Btw, I’m measuring less than 6 seconds to clear on the Prograde 512 card. In case anyone still cares, it is the fastest card I’ve tested to date. I’m more fascinated by what’s going on under the hood preventing the card from being fully utilized. This matters more as essentially you’re not getting the benefits from faster cards to a large degree. Even my Sony Tough arguably is overkill.

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on,

take lens cap off

and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB.

what? reality is 37 mpxl RAWS

There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

just take lens cap off, shoot real shots

how many shots? around 30 in 2 seconds

how long to clear buffer? around 8 seconds

Both cards are writing back exactly 10GB in 2 minutes in camera. I did a test of continuous burst non-stop for 2 minutes and compared the number of shots but more importantly the amount of data written back as in real life shooting RAW files do vary slightly in size depending on conditions.

The camera, if you can believe it, is only capable of processing approx 83mb/sec of data by my math. Now yes, the ProGrade can write it back a touch faster in single clear only, the but this in fact doesn't matter apparently if you're going to repeat it right after, which is the point and the assumption that having a faster card will let you jump back in the action faster. The camera is the bottleneck anyways, tough.

Now it is apparent on a single clear that some cards are faster than others. But does it matter? Again, I'll have to change my testing methodology. Have to leave for my real duties in a bit, I'm thinking I shoot bursts at a time, not a single long continuous burst. But I think I'll run into the same problem. Going to mull on this further but right now my verdict is having a fast UHS-II card is beneficial, but not sure how much difference it makes. Maybe I re-run the 2 minute test with a UHS-I card? Maybe I will later.

I’m wondering if shooting CRAW or JPEG influences these numbers now… More testing needed.

Edit: it’s sounding like there are three components in play, the processor, a fixed internal buffer, and the card. But the notion of a bus limit, appears false. Now this amounts to a bus limit, but it’s a weakest link in the chain, which appears to be the processor, not a north bridge or USB/scsi protocol/sd bus issue, theoretically. This is in fact a worse problem than a bus limit of 160mb/sec, but it makes logical sense. Again, I’ll retest with different conditions and and setup to see how much that card actually matters in “best case” scenarios. I can tell you right now, not as much as I thought. It’s simply not the weak link in the chain. The processor appears to be. Canons been behind the times on processing for years, this remains unchanged which shouldn’t surprise me.

Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review - Performance (imaging-resource.com)

test like the above - otherwise have no idea what you are doing

I highly prize that article, but this goes beyond The scope of that article. It appears that the processor has always been the weak link in the chain. This is a surprise to me because I thought Canon had solved that with DIGIC8, they didn’t. This makes a little more sense now why they essentially took the same sensor and put it in the R7 but slapped a newer processor behind.

Btw, I’m measuring less than 6 seconds to clear on the Prograde 512 card. In case anyone still cares, it is the fastest card I’ve tested to date. I’m more fascinated by what’s going on under the hood preventing the card from being fully utilized. This matters more as essentially you’re not getting the benefits from faster cards to a large degree. Even my Sony Tough arguably is overkill.

we knew this already from the image resource article

G giving 6 seconds to clear and M giving 8 seconds to clear -- it ain't worth faster cards

as I said, $39 per card, 37 MB raw files, 1700 images. 64 gb sony tough M card is the way to go

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

Btw, I’m measuring less than 6 seconds to clear on the Prograde 512 card. In case anyone still cares, it is the fastest card I’ve tested to date. I’m more fascinated by what’s going on under the hood preventing the card from being fully utilized. This matters more as essentially you’re not getting the benefits from faster cards to a large degree. Even my Sony Tough arguably is overkill.

we knew this already from the image resource article

G giving 6 seconds to clear and M giving 8 seconds to clear -- it ain't worth faster cards

as I said, $39 per card, 37 MB raw files, 1700 images. 64 gb sony tough M card is the way to go

This is still my fave card in the M6ii as well.

R2

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

RLight wrote:

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

sorry to hear, it would be a killer in event photography

sony toughs or sandsk for me

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

sorry to hear, it would be a killer in event photography

sony toughs or sandsk for me

I've NEVER had that many images lost in a single go, ever. And, I've only ever had two card faults, in my time of shooting digital (before this).

This sort of thing is why I can see dual card slots for professional use. A single loss could cost you not just the fee for the event, but reputation, too.

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

sorry to hear, it would be a killer in event photography

sony toughs or sandsk for me

I've NEVER had that many images lost in a single go, ever. And, I've only ever had two card faults, in my time of shooting digital (before this).

This sort of thing is why I can see dual card slots for professional use.

A single loss could cost you not just the fee for the event, but reputation, too.

that is true

but I only buy sandisk and sony tough

I shoot RP and M6II in tandem to back up shots

that said I'm also taking my 7d2 to the event I have this month - need to get paid

7d2 is an event camera

R7 would also be an event camera

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

sorry to hear, it would be a killer in event photography

sony toughs or sandsk for me

I've NEVER had that many images lost in a single go, ever. And, I've only ever had two card faults, in my time of shooting digital (before this).

This sort of thing is why I can see dual card slots for professional use.

A single loss could cost you not just the fee for the event, but reputation, too.

that is true

but I only buy sandisk and sony tough

I shoot RP and M6II in tandem to back up shots

that said I'm also taking my 7d2 to the event I have this month - need to get paid

7d2 is an event camera

R7 would also be an event camera

We know that 32mp sensor likes good glass.

What lenses would you use on a R7 for events ?

I am to the point where just my 11-22,32, 56mm or 100mm gets mounted in front of that sensor.

RLight wrote:

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

I have got bunch of Sony M 64s and one E 128.

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I'm unhappy to report data loss on this card, a lot I might add. Never, have I seen this much data loss. Took me a minute to figure out it was the card as I started getting -50 error's, which when dropping to a CLI, I got invalid arguments when trying to copy from BASH. Then reviewing in post, corrupt RAWs, 2000+ of them. I'm fuming.

Not Pro-grade, at all.

Guess I need to go back to my Sony Toughs, never had a problem with em. Just 128GB came be limiting.

sorry to hear, it would be a killer in event photography

sony toughs or sandsk for me

I've NEVER had that many images lost in a single go, ever. And, I've only ever had two card faults, in my time of shooting digital (before this).

This sort of thing is why I can see dual card slots for professional use.

A single loss could cost you not just the fee for the event, but reputation, too.

that is true

but I only buy sandisk and sony tough

I shoot RP and M6II in tandem to back up shots

that said I'm also taking my 7d2 to the event I have this month - need to get paid

7d2 is an event camera

R7 would also be an event camera

We know that 32mp sensor likes good glass.

What lenses would you use on a R7 for events ?

I used some cheap off-brand cards and lost some shots in the old days before I shot events -- never lost shots with sandisk in over 1 million shots

the R7 lacks native RF-s glass I'd use for events - until then, I stay with my 7d mark 2 for the native "value" EF glass

first and foremost - my money lens:  70-200 F2.8L - it's heavy, but paid for all of my gear the last 17 years   -- "fill the frame for event shooting earns the rewards"   - no way around it for the value/reward

I also take my toki 10-17 FE, Canon 24 IS, Canon 35 IS

The 100L or m32 sits on the m6II and the RF 24-105 F4L sits on the RP

I also sometimes take my dual odins and three speedlights and 60 inch umbrella

backup group shots with the use of two cameras

I might take my 55-250 stm if the venue has enough light

I will roll it all in with one trip

For the RP and M6II for event shooting, back up shots with multiple cameras and change cards often so as not to lose too many eggs in one basket